(a) Examining witness
concerning previous statement. In examining a witness concerning
a previous statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be
shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same must be
shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.

(a)
Showing or Disclosing the Statement During Examination. When examining a witness
about the witness's prior statement, a party need not show it or disclose its contents to the
witness. But the party must, on request, show it or disclose its contents to an adverse party's
attorney.

(b) Extrinsic evidence of
previous inconsistent statement of witness. Extrinsic evidence of
a previous inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded
an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity
to interrogate the witness thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require. This provision
does not apply to admission of a party-opponent as defined in Rule
801(d)(2).

(b)
Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Inconsistent Statement. Extrinsic evidence of a witness's
prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to
explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the
witness about it, or if justice so requires. This subdivision (b) does not apply to an opposing
party's statement under Rule 801(d)(2).

EXPLANATORY
NOTE

Rule 613 was amended, effective
March 1, 1990; _____________.

Rule 613 is an adoption
ofbased onRule Fed.R.Ev. 613
of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The rule has been specifically approved by the North Dakota Supreme
Court:

"The rule requiring a
predicate for impeachment by prior inconsistent statements,
sometimes called the rule in Queen Caroline's Case, is gradually disappearing. See
McCormick, § 37; 3 Weinstein, Evidence, p. 613-3 (1975). As we have stated, it does
not apply to admissions by parties. As to other witnesses, the requirement has been
eliminated in many recent revisions of the rules of evidence. The new Federal Rules of
Evidence eliminate the requirement of prior opportunity to explain or deny. Instead, they
provide that the witness must have the opportunity at some time to explain or deny, but that
the judge may dispense with the requirement if the interests of justice require. Rule 613(b).
They also provide that the witness need not be shown a contradictory statement, but it must
be shown or disclosed to his counsel on request. Rule 613(a). We believe these rules
represent the best available reconciliation of conflicting interests, and we specifically
approve them." Starr v. Morsette, 236 N.W.2d 183, 188, n. 2 (N.D.
1975).

Rule 613 was amended, effective March
1, 1990. The amendments are technical in nature
and no substantive change is intended.

Rule 613 was amended, effective
______________, in response to the December 1, 2011,
revision of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The language and organization of the rule were
changed to make the rule more easily understood and to make style and terminology
consistent throughout the rules. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on
evidence admissibility.